Sorry, but I have trouble understanding what you mean. Could you please elaborate with an example? Thanks.
On 30.07.2005 13:54:25 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:40:25PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > I was under the impression that the breaker automatically favors break > > decisions that take up less space. It even goes so far that if you have > > a minimum="0pt" and an optimum="2opt" on a space-before, that it > > currently chooses "0pt" which is not so good, actually. > > Penalties would help. If there were a penalty associated with the > break below 'B', then the break above it becomes more favourable. I do > not think the breaker could do that otherwise (without the newly > proposed rule). > > > Well, we have several documented examples on the Wiki which we could > > play through to see if the breaker is likely to make bad break decisions. > > > > But I get the impression that this avoids the topic I raised. :-) I > > think this here is not about whether these special break conditions are > > favored or avoided but if they should be allowed at all. > > > > On 27.07.2005 21:54:00 Simon Pepping wrote: > > > One thing that IMHO is still lacking in the table breaking code is > > > penalty values. ATM all penalties are 0. I believe the penalty value > > > should depend on the extra vertical size that the break contributes, > > > that is, on the penalty's width. I have no idea about the > > > multiplication constant, nor if it should be linear or quadratic. I am > > > not sure if it avoids the current case, but it is surely needed in > > > order to favour better breaks over worse ones. > > Regards, Simon > > -- > Simon Pepping > home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl Jeremias Maerki
